Conspiracy Theory Martin Bryant and Port Arthur - Conspiracy or Cheddar?

[Malifice]

Only after he was in solitary confinement for six months and he was told his mother and sister would commit suicide if he didn't plead guilty.

Yeah, but that doesn't mean that there wasn't a wealth of hard evidence to convict him if he went the other way.

Read the guys wiki entry and tell me he didn't do it.

From the looks of things, he offed his Father and Girlfriend a few years prior.

 

[Heisenberg_]

From his website:

And with that single paragraph that website it came from is completely discredited.

 

[winty]

Yeah, but that doesn't mean that there wasn't a wealth of hard evidence to convict him if he went the other way.

Read the guys wiki entry and tell me he didn't do it.

From the looks of things, he offed his Father and Girlfriend a few years prior.

If he was guilty, why didn't they take him out to the scene of the crime and let him show them everything he did? After all, they did the same thing with Julian Knight at Hoddle Street.

And where's all this hard evidence you constantly talk about, when even the head forensic investigator of the Tasmanian Police has admitted there is no empirical evidence linking Bryant to the Broad Arrow Cafe?

 

[Malifice]

And with that single paragraph that website it came from is completely discredited.

Fairly sure the author also believes the Jews were somehow behind it.

I'd wager he also feels 'anthropogenic global warming' is an outlandish conspiracy.

Just a hunch.

 

[Malifice]

And where's all this hard evidence you constantly talk about,

Aside from over a dozen unrelated first hand witnesses, including people who spoke to him there, opened the door for him, watched him eat, security guards who watched him enter, people who were shot by him, and watched him gun down relatives and so forth.

Aside from that you mean.

 

[winty]

Aside from over a dozen unrelated first hand witnesses, including people who spoke to him there, opened the door for him, watched him eat, security guards who watched him enter, people who were shot by him, and watched him gun down relatives and so forth.

Aside from that you mean.

You mean the ones who described him as having long straight hair past his shoulders and either a pockled face or freckles, when the real Martin Bryant had curly hair that barely reached his shoulders and a clear complexion? Those witnesses?

Or do you mean the witnesses who said on the day they wouldn't be able to identify Martin Bryant, but then suddenly knew what he looked like a few weeks later after his photo had been plastered everywhere?

Or do you mean the witnesses like Wendy Scurr who knew Martin Bryant and got a good look at the shooter and swore it wasn't Bryant?

Which witnesses do you mean exactly?

 

[CAS79]

Not sure why everyone is pointing to a cover up by the government, he would of been a very easy target to setup. Now he probably did it well more then likely but you can't deny how awful the investigation was handled and if they got the right man he was my dumb luck and nothing else.

Detial what they did wrong please?

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

You mean the ones who described him as having long straight hair past his shoulders and either a pockled face or freckles, when the real Martin Bryant had curly hair that barely reached his shoulders and a clear complexion? Those witnesses?

Or do you mean the witnesses who said on the day they wouldn't be able to identify Martin Bryant, but then suddenly knew what he looked like a few weeks later after his photo had been plastered everywhere?

Or do you mean the witnesses like Wendy Scurr who knew Martin Bryant and got a good look at the shooter and swore it wasn't Bryant?

Which witnesses do you mean exactly?

These are the kinds of questions you need to be asking. It makes it that much harder for the sheeple types to ignore the matter and dismiss the discussion with tin foil hat comments.

I don't believe a truly rational person can deny that there are some startling anomalies about this case.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

If Bryant really was a patsy nutjob etc as the conspiracy types claoim, the cops would have whacked him to prevent him ever being possibly able to reveal the drama.

If Bryant is a patsy, then folks as low down the power ladder as cops certainly wouldn't be privvy to that information.

Bryant is a borderline nutter prone to wild flights of fancy. The beauty of positioning someone like him is that you don't have to cover your tracks with him.

 

[winty]

Detial what they did wrong please?

Gee, where do we start?

1. The police were called at 1.32pm. They didn't arrive until after 7.30pm, even though they were only an hour and a half drive's away. Of course, stopping for a BBQ on the way didn't help matters. That meant the crime scene wasn't secure for over 6 hours, allowing plenty of time for it to be compromised.

2. His name and photograph were plastered all over the papers before he pleaded guilty, which would have meant there would have been no opportunity for a fair trial, assuming of course they ever planned on giving Bryant one. So much for "innocent before proven guilty".

3. A coronial inquiry which is required by law when people from overseas are killed, or when people are killed in a fire, was waived by John Howard on sentimental reasons, when he had no authority to do so. Likewise, he called for the Broad Arrow Cafe to be bulldozed, when it would have been pivotal as part of a fair trial, especially in gathering forensic evidence related to the case.

4. Martin Bryant was held in solitary confinement for nearly seven months despite the fact he hadn't been charged with any crime until he finally pleaded guilty. During that time, he was denied access to all forms of media, so was kept in the dark about the massacre and his alleged role in it.

5. His police interrogation was illegally conducted, since Bryant had no legal counsel or guardian present. Furthermore, at times during the interrogation, he was left alone with one policeman, which is against all police rules for handling of suspects. Also, Bryant was questioned under the impression he was going to be charged with the murder of one person. Suspects are required by law to know what exactly he/she are being questioned for.

6. Neither of his defence lawyers made any effort to defend him. Both seemed to understand their role to be to persuade him to plead guilty. However, since he was declared incompetent to manage his own affairs in a court hearing 2 years prior, he was legally unable to enter his own plea.

How's that for starters?

 

[boncer34]

You mean the ones who described him as having long straight hair past his shoulders and either a pockled face or freckles, when the real Martin Bryant had curly hair that barely reached his shoulders and a clear complexion? Those witnesses?

Or do you mean the witnesses who said on the day they wouldn't be able to identify Martin Bryant, but then suddenly knew what he looked like a few weeks later after his photo had been plastered everywhere?

Or do you mean the witnesses like Wendy Scurr who knew Martin Bryant and got a good look at the shooter and swore it wasn't Bryant?

Which witnesses do you mean exactly?

How about the ones that knew him, grew up with him, saw him and have repeatedly rejected advances from all media outlets and conspiracy theory nuts because they refuse to give the incident air time?

 

[winty]

i still couldn't believe it when this bloke plead not guilty in his original plea

Maybe because he truly believes he wasn't guilty. Crazy concept I know.

 

[Chief]

http://www.whale.to/b/viallspam.html

Good read. Raises many points against Bryant being the killer.

Lots of bolded and italicised words. Changing font sizes and colours. Sweeping generalisations and assumptions. The hallmark of the seasoned nutter.

 

[boncer34]

Lots of bolded and italicised words. Changing font sizes and colours. Sweeping generalisations and assumptions. The hallmark of the seasoned nutter.

Pretty much sums it up nicely.

 

[Malifice]

You mean the ones who described him as having long straight hair past his shoulders and either a pockled face or freckles, when the real Martin Bryant had curly hair that barely reached his shoulders and a clear complexion? Those witnesses?

Yep those ones.

For what its worth, you just described a routine phenomenon with witnesses and criminal trials. Its why witness evidence is always a little sketchy. Particularly with a single witness.

When you wind up with 50 odd witnesses saying mostly the same thing you go with the majority.

Those blokes have no reason to lie. There are dozens of first hand accounts from people there that saw him, spoke to him, watched him kill and so forth.

There is also his lawyers comments:

His motivation for the massacre remains a closely guarded secret,[19] known only to his lawyer, who is bound not to reveal confidences without his client's consent. The lawyer later released a book outlining that Bryant was motivated largely by the media surrounding the then recent Dunblane massacre. From the moment he was captured he continually wanted to know how many people he had killed and seemed impressed by the number.

His back history and the reports of numerous Psychiatrists:

In a 2011 interview, his mother recalls that she would often find his toys broken at a very young age, branding him an "annoying" and "different" child. A psychologist's view was that he would never hold down a job as he would aggravate people to such an extent that he'd always be in trouble.[4] Other cases that locals can recall include that he once pulled the snorkel from another boy while diving, and cut down trees on a neighbour's property. He was described by teachers as being distant from reality and unemotional. At school he was a disruptive and sometimes violent child, and suffered severe bullying by other children. After he was suspended from New Town Primary School in 1977, psychological assessments of Bryant note his torturing of animals...

Around this time Bryant was reassessed for his pension, and a note was attached to the paperwork "Father protects him from any occasion which might upset him as he continually threatens violence ... Martin tells me he would like to go around shooting people. It would be unsafe to allow Martin out of his parents' control".[7]

Then this:

In early 1987 when Bryant was 19, he met then 54-year-old eccentric recluse Helen Mary Elizabeth Harvey, heiress to a share in the Tattersall's lottery fortune, while looking for new customers for his lawn-mowing service. Harvey, who lived with her mother Hilva, befriended Bryant who became a regular visitor to her neglected New Town mansion, and assisted with tasks such as feeding the fourteen dogs living inside the house, and the forty cats living inside her garage

In 1991, as a result of no longer being allowed to have animals at the house, Harvey and Bryant moved together onto a 29 hectares (72 acres) farm called Taurusville that she had purchased in Copping, Tasmania. Neighbours recalled he always carried an air gun and often fired it at tourists as they stopped to buy apples at a stall on the highway, and that late at night he would roam through the surrounding properties firing the gun at dogs when they barked at him. They avoided him "at all costs" despite his attempts to befriend them.[7]

On 20 October 1992 Harvey was killed when her car veered to the wrong side of the road and hit an oncoming car directly.[7] Bryant was inside the vehicle at the time of the accident, and was hospitalised for seven months with severe neck and back injuries. He was briefly investigated by police for the role he played in the accident, as Bryant had a habit of lunging for the steering wheel and Harvey already had three accidents as a result. She often told people that this was the reason she never drove faster than 60 kilometres an hour (37 mph). Bryant was named the sole beneficiary of Harvey's will and came into possession of assets totalling more than $550,000.

Then this:

After Harvey's death, Bryant's father Maurice moved into the Copping farm to look after it. Bryant returned to the farm after leaving hospital the following year. He had been prescribed antidepressants, and had secretly transferred his joint bank account and utilities into his wife's name.[7] Two months later, on 14 August, a person visiting Maurice Bryant found a note saying "call the police" pinned to the door and found several thousand dollars in his car. Police searched the property for Maurice Bryant, without success. Divers were called to search the four dams on the property. On 16 August his body was found in the dam closest to the farmhouse with one of Martin Bryant's diving weight belts around his neck. Although ruled a suicide by drowning, police described it as an "unnatural" death. Bryant inherited the proceeds of his father's superannuation fund valued at $250,000.

Here is a report by Paul E. Mullen, Professor of Forensic Psychiatry, Monash University. Director of Victorian Forensic Psychiatry Services conducted after an interview with Bryant after the massacre:

Mr Bryant in the early parts of the interview referred to the tragic events at Port Arthur as ``the accident''. He claimed to have no memory of these events nor to have any memory for what may have led up to the shootings. The only account he provided was of waylaying the occupants of a BMW and then claiming to have driven this car at high speed. Later in the interview, perhaps as a result of becoming more trustful, he provided an account which at least in part may be relevant to the events.

Mr Bryant began by acknowledging ``since I lost Miss Harvey things have slipped back on me, I just felt more people were against me. When I tried to be friendly toward them, they just walked away''. He also became more caught up in ruminating on memories of slights and insults from the past. He said he began to think about these things a great deal and began to go over in his mind how he could get even. Initially he said he said he thought about strangling someone who was unfriendly to him, but then his thoughts turned to ``shooting them''. Mr Bryant said ``I thought guns would be better, the more power, the better''. Mr Bryant at this point began to talk about his various guns, in particular, a machine gun which he took to be repaired in March or February. I asked him whether he had intended to use this weapon, but he informed me that this type of gun is ``too unstable''. He happily discussed the virtues of various semi-automatic versus fully automatic guns.

He stated that about a year ago he decided he had ``had enough''. He was unsure exactly when the plan came to him for the massacre at Port Arthur. He said that he thought the plan first occured to him a few weeks prior to the tragic events. When pressed he though it might be either 4 or as long as 12 weeks ago that this first occurred. When asked why he selected Port Arthur he responded ``a lot of violence has happened there, it must be the most violent place in Australia; it seemed the right place''.

Mr Bryant assumed that when he began shooting at Port Arthur he would himself be shot down. He stated in one interview ``my power, so powerful and the guns and these magazines filled with bullets, I could just go bang, bang, bang''. This plan to kill Mr and Mrs Martin and then proceed to Port Arthur appears initially to have been elaborated following the break up of Mr Bryant's relationship with Ms Hoani at a time when he was particularly despondent about his situation and his future. Although with the initiation of the relationship with Ms Willmot his mood improved and his suicidal preoccupations disappeared, nonetheless this dreadful plan appears to have been persisted with and eventually to have been put into awful practice.

http://kildall.apana.org.au/autism/articles/bryant.html

He in on it too?

 

[MaddAdam]

Joe 'it was a Zionist plot' Vialls.

Joe Vialls also thought the 2004 tsunami was set off by a mini nuke in order to further population control.

 

[winty]

Yep those ones.

For what its worth, you just described a routine phenomenon with witnesses and criminal trials. Its why witness evidence is always a little sketchy. Particularly with a single witness.

When you wind up with 50 odd witnesses saying mostly the same thing you go with the majority.

Those blokes have no reason to lie. There are dozens of first hand accounts from people there that saw him, spoke to him, watched him kill and so forth.

There is also his lawyers comments:



His back history and the reports of numerous Psychiatrists:




Then this:




Then this:




Here is a report by Paul E. Mullen, Professor of Forensic Psychiatry, Monash University. Director of Victorian Forensic Psychiatry Services conducted after an interview with Bryant after the massacre:



http://kildall.apana.org.au/autism/articles/bryant.html

He in on it too?

I like how you conveniently neglected this sentence:

I did not pursue with Mr Bryant any account of the actual killings as these can sadly be all too readily reconstructed from eyewitnesses and police investigations.

Could it be he didn't pursue any account at the risk that Bryant's account would differ too much from the official story? After all, in his police interrogation he repeatedly denied being at Port Arthur that day, and when told about what happened at the Broad Arrow Cafe, he seemed shocked and hoped no-one was killed. Does that sound like someone who was actually there?

Having read all that though, if it was indeed a conspiracy, it makes perfect sense why they would choose Martin Bryant to be the patsy. He sounds just like the kind of person who would do something like what happened that day.

 

[Malifice]

Could it be he didn't pursue any account at the risk that Bryant's account would differ too much from the official story? After all, in his police interrogation he repeatedly denied being at Port Arthur that day, and when told about what happened at the Broad Arrow Cafe, he seemed shocked and hoped no-one was killed. Does that sound like someone who was actually there?

Yes it does.

Someone busted by the cops then lied to them? Heaven forbid.

Pray tell, why did he leave his car (and shotgun) at the scene of the crime, and then speed away in a stolen BMW armed with high powered rifles and with a hostage in the boot and then set the joint on fire if he was just there for the sightseeing?

Seeing as he wasn't the shooter, seems an odd thing to do at the very least.

 

[Malifice]

He sounds just like the kind of person who would do something like what happened that day.

Dwell on this statement for a bit.

 

[winty]

Yes it does.

Someone busted by the cops then lied to them? Heaven forbid.

Pray tell, why did he leave his car (and shotgun) at the scene of the crime, and then speed away in a stolen BMW armed with high powered rifles and with a hostage in the boot and then set the joint on fire if he was just there for the sightseeing?

If he was so concerned about shooting people that day, why take a hostage at all? Why not shoot them there and then?

 

[Malifice]

If he was so concerned about shooting people that day, why take a hostage at all? Why not shoot them there and then?

Because he has an IQ of 66. He's not the sharpest tool in the shed. Same reason he thought a flight to Adelaide (on a helicopter) was going to do him any good.

Are you suggesting it wasn't him talking to the cops from the servo, taking a hostage, carjacking the BMW etc.

Not even conspiracy nuts go that far.

 

[winty]

Because he has an IQ of 66. He's not the sharpest tool in the shed. Same reason he thought a flight to Adelaide (on a helicopter) was going to do him any good.

Are you suggesting it wasn't him talking to the cops from the servo, taking a hostage, carjacking the BMW etc.

Not even conspiracy nuts go that far.

He admitted to taking a hostage and carjacking the BMW. He never admitted to anything else that day. In fact, he thought the entire police interrogation was due to that fact.

 

[Flawed Genius]

Yes it does.

Someone busted by the cops then lied to them? Heaven forbid.

For reference, I read through the Jill Meagher thread last night.

In Bayley's first interview with police after being arrested, he denied ever being on Sydney Rd on the night of the murder. Criminals lie.

 

[Malifice]

For reference, I read through the Jill Meagher thread last night.

In Bayley's first interview with police after being arrested, he denied ever being on Sydney Rd on the night of the murder. Criminals lie.

They almost always do.

Many maintain those lies (even believe them) for a very long time afterwards.

 

[winty]

For reference, I read through the Jill Meagher thread last night.

In Bayley's first interview with police after being arrested, he denied ever being on Sydney Rd on the night of the murder. Criminals lie.

I bet Bayley knew he was being questioned for her murder though. Bryant never knew he was being questioned in relation to the massacre at Port Arthur. He thought he was being questioned in relation to the murder of one person, not in excess of 20.